Thursday, December 29, 2016

Further thoughts on Trump's election - Part 3

This post is the third in a series of musings about Trump's election in
which I identify five concerns and then suggest a response to each (follow these links to read the first and second posts).

Concerns that Trump's win points toward
a fracturing of the Union, e.g., as liberal, more youthful populations,
who live along the coasts find themselves increasingly alienated from
older, less affluent, less educated, more conservative populations who
live in the nation's broad middle

(For more on the demographic disparities between Trump supporters and
foes, read this article
from the Washington Post.)

Generational divides are not new. What troubles me about this divide is
its geographic component, i.e., the US is increasingly segregated as people choose
to live in homogenous neighborhoods defined primarily by shared values. In many
respects, this is the most intractable of my list of concerns about a Trump
presidency and best addressed through acting on the recommendations in response
to the other four concerns.

Trepidation that Trump's election moves
the US toward an authoritarian dictatorship, a fear heightened by Trump's repeated
and flagrant disregard for facts, the ongoing involvement of his children
in both his business and the government, and his evident reluctance to
step completely aside from his business interests in order to avoid even
the appearance of a conflict of interest.

The US is a nation in which the rule of law, not the rule of individuals,
prevails. A written Constitution, independent judiciary, and adversarial legal system
combine to support the rule of law. Vigilant observation of Trump
administration personnel, their actions, and their decisions followed by courageous
and unswerving efforts to prosecute legal transgressions are the best defense
against replacing the rule of law with the rule of persons. Some Trump opponents
have already committed publicly to following this path.

People best exercise this option prudentially. Numerous and unrestrained
legal maneuvers can reduce the public credibility of these efforts (as happened
with the dozens of cases filed against the Obama administration by GOP foes)
and unintentionally undercut other efforts to reform or move the political
process in constructive directions.

Impeachment by the House of Representatives and conviction by the
Senate, followed by removal from office is the ultimate legal sanction. Trump
appears headed in that direction for at least two reasons. First, his
involvement of his children in government affairs may violate nepotism laws
enacted after JFK nominated his brother as Attorney General. Second, some of Trump's
global businesses partner with foreign governments, creating a prima facie
violation of the Constitution's emoluments clause that forbids any US
government official from accepting benefits from a foreign government.